masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:MoS policy reform
Voting For #I, the proposer, M.C.Tales 16:00, June 7, 2011 (UTC) Neutral Against #Too general a proposal. The more specific components mentioned in this proposal (standards for character article titles, italicizing works and ship names) should be discussed individually. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:24, June 7, 2011 (UTC) #110% Oppose for the reasons that I stated below, and what Commdor said above. This is too general and basically will throw out the MoS and hopes for the best. This is way to general and either needs to gets specific or needs to be broken up. Lancer1289 16:30, June 7, 2011 (UTC) #I have to agree. There's nothing specific being proposed here... and the MoS is pretty detailed on the wiki. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:58, June 7, 2011 (UTC) #I've said if before and I'll say it again: This is not Wikipedia. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would assume Wikipedia's MoS would work better than our own MoS. SpartHawg948 18:55, June 7, 2011 (UTC) Discussion I, personally, don't think that Wikipedia's Manual of Style is completely unsuitable for this wiki; we simply take their rules and modify them wherever we needed for this particular wiki, but starting over from scratch just doesn't make sense. Also, in my personal opinion, the current standards of this wiki seem pretty low and make it look unpolished. Perhaps if we actually followed some of the guidelines in the general Manual of Style (such as italicizing the names of works and ships), or general stuff done by other wikis, like naming conventions for articles on characters not including titles if their full names are known (for example, the article Admiral Hackett would be changed to "Steven Hackett"), and using the default sort tool to sort articles on characters into articles by last name (for example, David Anderson would be sorted as "Anderson, David"), and I think that the wiki would look better. I know that overhauling the entire wiki will be long and tedious, but I am ready, willing and able. BTW, I know that the Manual of Style I mentioned is not the official one for this wiki, but I really don't have a clue as to where to go for the official General MoS. — M.C.Tales 16:00, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :So the fact we have a Manual of Style, which covers specifics of what is needed here and aligns to specific things of the Mass Effect Universe, means nothing. Again. I am completely 110% opposed to this and honestly this proposal says that we should just throw out the MoS and proposes absolutely no changes to it. Not one thing to change, just throw it out and hope for the best. As a result, the "low standards", which I completely disagree with, would be completely non-existent. The MoS here is specific to this wiki and we have quite high standards for articles, but this would throw out a lot of things and eliminate standards. :What this is saying is we should basically follow what everyone else is doing, and that isn't how Wikia or wikis work. Wikia gives each individual wiki broad freedoms when it comes to their policies and we have crafted policies and an MoS for this wiki. I have stated this time and time again, taking policies that work for one wiki and putting them in another doesn't always work, and if they do, it is something so general, that it is either implied or not even mentioned because it is expected. :If this proposal proposed something be added to the MoS, or something changed, then I would probably be saying something differently, however this proposal proposes we throw out the MoS and import something that isn't crafted for this wiki, may not work on this wiki, and may have policies that run counter to the canon of the Mass Effect Universe. :This proposal either needs to propose specific changes, or as a result, we will throw out the specifically crafted MoS for this wiki, and the “low standards”, which I againncompletely disagree with if that wasn’t obvious, here would collapse. Lancer1289 16:27, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :::The "proposal", such as it is, is incredibly vague. The description doesn't actually describe what we're voting on. From what I'm seeing, this is merely another effort to get us to use Wikipedia's MoS as our own. If this is not the case, please enlighten me as to the purpose of the proposal. If I am correct, count me solidly with the opposition. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, taking an MoS from Wikipedia is not a valid option. There are too many differences and idiosyncrasies to expect their MoS to work better than one tailor-made for us. SpartHawg948 18:53, June 7, 2011 (UTC)